JS v KB & Anor (Property And Affairs Deputy for DB) [2014] EWCOP 483 (26 February 2014)

JS v KB & Anor (Property And Affairs Deputy for DB) [2014] EWCOP 483 (26 February 2014)

Given JS's improper handling of DB's finances, her conflict of interest, and her conduct in the litigation, it would be unconscionable for DB to bear the costs. JS should pay two-thirds of KB's costs and four-fifths of MP's (DB's) litigation costs. KB is not entirely blameless and must bear a part of his own costs.

Citation
[2014] EWCOP 483
Parties
Applicant: JS; Respondent: KB; Respondent: MP (Property and Affairs Deputy for DB)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Property and Affairs Application / Costs Determination Following Resolution of Deputyship Application
Outcome
Costs order against JS; departure from general rule.
Legal Topics
Deputyship, Costs in Court of Protection, Capacity to Manage Property, Beneficial Interest in Property, Family Care Arrangements
Mental Capacity Elder Law Property Law Deputyship Costs in Court of Protection Capacity to Manage Property Beneficial Interest in Property Family Care Arrangements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JS

Applicant

KB

Respondent

MP (Property and Affairs Deputy for DB)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Property and Affairs Application / Costs Determination Following Resolution of Deputyship Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the general rule that costs be paid by P or charged to P's estate should be departed from
  2. 2 Whether JS should bear the costs of litigation incurred by KB and MP (on behalf of DB)
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of JS and KB justified a departure from the general rule

Ratio Decidendi

Given JS's improper handling of DB's finances, her conflict of interest, and her conduct in the litigation, it would be unconscionable for DB to bear the costs. JS should pay two-thirds of KB's costs and four-fifths of MP's (DB's) litigation costs. KB is not entirely blameless and must bear a part of his own costs.

Court Disposition

Costs order against JS; departure from general rule.

Orders

  • JS to pay four-fifths of the deputy's (MP's) litigation costs to date.
  • JS to pay two-thirds of KB's litigation costs.